Hi all,

Marc - thanks for your kind words.

James - good question! 

Obviously the intention is to keep things as open as possible - and when submitting items into the Imperica Createstore database, GPL is a licensing option, as is EUPL (and many others). Re recommending EUPL, Wikipedia sums it up quite nicely...

"Its [EUPL's] main goal is its focusing on being consistent with the copyright law in the 27 Member States of the European Union, while retaining compatibility with popular open-source software licences such as the GNU General Public License."

... so that's why, really: it seemed that suggesting a license which was consistent with both EU copyright law and the GPL was the right thing to do.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Morris <james@jwm-art.net>
To: netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:06:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Imperica catalogue
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:38:00 +0100
Paul Squires <paul.squires@perininetworks.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> About a fortnight ago, I put a note out to Netbehaviour, saying that
> we're thinking of developing a big index of open source code/software
> on Imperica, to serve the needs of creators, programmers, and
> artists. Thanks all that added their thoughts and opinions - greatly
> appreciated.
> The idea has been developed a little further and we've now made a
> little announcement about it:
> http://www.imperica.com/createstore

Just curious, why do you suggest the EUPL for licensing code rather
than more widely used licenses such as the GNU GPL?